Just got a mag I think its guides to Muscle Cars by Hemmings, there is a write up of a 1971 Valiant Charger R/T from down under with a 265 Hemi six cyclinder...lotsa of torgue and about 245HP was very quick, triple side draft webers, hot cam and headers built to get young people over to from Ford and GM....Used all local parts was on tight coprorate budget...I think only 4 left from several hundred built.....

_________________
73 Dart 4dr
70 duster
75 VW bug
ex-88 honda rice rocket
ex-70 cuda 383

There are more than 4 surviving as 1 bloke I know has 2 and I know of quite a few others around. They were a great performance package, very fast and a lot of fun to drive.
btw, check this out
http://p206.ezboard.com/fmoparmarketfrm ... =118.topic

_________________
94 Falcon 4.0 auto
70 Valiant 265 Hemi auto
70 Valiant 318, 904, Coupe
69 Valiant 225 auto x 3 (1 sedan, 2 coupes)
64 Falcon 250 2V auto
yes, I have too many projects.

Fingers; that is real nice

_________________
73 Dart 4dr
70 duster
75 VW bug
ex-88 honda rice rocket
ex-70 cuda 383

And it's not a hemi, regardless of what Chrysler Australia claimed. The so-called hemi six of Chrysler Australia was a wedge-head design with the spark plugs on the sides of the head. If you ever get a chance to see one, compare the head of the "Hemi" six with those on Chrysler America's hemi V8 engines.

Just another example of imagination in marketing.

_________________
Bill
Vancouver, BC

You're right about teh combustion chambers not being anything like a hemi. They are a lot like Cleveland heads I suppose, except the ports are on the same side of the head. I guess that Chrysler used the Hemi name because they possibly had a trademark or something at the time, it sounded cool, and it was a good catchy name to help introduce the new engine to the Chrysler lineup.
An interesting thing is that Chrysler raced the R/T at the Hardie Ferodo 500(500miles around the Bathurst road circuit) race one year.
They were pitted against local Falcons with 351 Clevelands, which is a pretty formidable engine. They finished third and fourth I think. The Fords obviously had a massive torque and horsepower advantage, but were about 250kgs heavier, and had the advantage of some specially homologated dics rotors(biig diameter) and pads. The thing that really let the Chargers down was front tyre wear and fuel consumption. Chrysler only raced at Bathurst one year, and even then, it was not full factory backing. Who knows what the Charger may have done with a 340/ 4 speed combo. Yes, the 340 was fitted to Australian Chargers, but with an auto only, and horrible exhaust manifolds.
Even bone stock, they are really torquey engines. My 265 hemi, with a 4 speed behind it and 2.92 rear gears, will leave cleanly fron a standing start at 900 rpm, and will pull away in 4th gear from 40km/h.(25mph)
They are a bit noisy at higher rpms, but very smooth. In typical Chrysler fashion, they were waaay under carbed, and had restrictive exhaust manifolds. Most of them had the Carter BBD, which would possibly have very nice jetting for a warmish slant.....
As for the Chargers, they weigh 130kgs less than a Valiant sedan, which helps a lot, and have a 4" shorter wheelbase, which helps creat slightly more nimble handling.
I have a slant in a truck, and the engines have similar characterisitcs stock, but the hemi has more of everything all the way through the rev range and is a more free revving engine.

Regards, Andrew.

That Charger sure is sharp!

Wish they had sold them here.